To assume that I put Michael Brown and Eric Garner in the same category is wrong. Also, I've even gone out of my way to support certain politicians because they are Black (e.g., Charles Lollar and Pinkston Harris. I'm glad that Larry Hogan has a Black Lieutenant Governor, Boyd Rutherford). I don't like the WASP and WEC mentality that some in the GOP have held for years. I come from Jewish families on both sides even (long story), and I've defended the Lemba Jews and Falasha Mura. As an Ashkenazi Jew from Crypto-Jewish families, I could easily back off and not defend the Lemba (who were slandered in a bogus study by an Indian oceanographer who claims that the CMH type that they have is not a kohen one). You can't assume, then, that I have contempt for Blacks.

I suppose, then, that I was stereotyped as much as she alleges that I stereotype Blacks.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Think of the song "Light One Candle". Part of the song goes, "Don't let the light go out; it's lasted for so many years." So have our people, 'Am Yisra'el, Ha'Or L'Goyim. We have lasted for millennia, ever since Yitzchak was conceived and born; and then Yitzchak conceived and had born to him two sons of his own, one of whom became Ya'akov Avinu.

Without Imoteinu, our coming forth and longevity as a people would have been impossible. Without achoteinu, habanot imoteinu, none of acheinu would have been able to conceive and have born to them successive dorot m'Yisra'el. Without further dorot m'Yisra'el, we would've died out as an 'am.

Therefore, your banning of HaNashot HaKotel is a chillul HaShem and a chillul zichronot ha'avot v'imahot. Even Ya'akov Avinu told even Imoteinu, "'Put away the strange gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; 3 and let us arise, and go up to Beth-el; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went.'" (From Bereshit 35, JPS 1917) Why do you, then, put away achoteinu as Imoteinu put away their strange g-ds?

Please consider whether to put away achoteinu, habanot Imoteinu, like Imoteinu put away strange g-ds is an avodah tovah. If it is an avodah tovah, then to have put away Imoteinu would have been tov, would it not have been?

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Now I'm really beginning to resent that #followforfollow trend. As I've said, I don't do it (I follow who I want to follow); and I really resent those who unfollow me when I didn't even solicit their follow in the first place. They act like I played that follow-for-follow game and/or they usually unfollow me without even an explanation or a hint as to why.

I've had at least four people do it (I say "four" because four specific ones initially were on or came to the front of my mind.), and two of whom did so record. The one unfollowed me (today) pretty much as soon as he followed me (yesterday), and the other unfollowed me recently (as I found out). The two others unfollowed me a while ago.

Here's a trend for them (and others who treat other Tweeters as my unfollowers treated me): #unfollowforunfollow.

Sunday, December 7, 2014

They apparently are. Then again, they may just be cutting it short. Still, isn't cutting off a part of history essentially ignoring it (at best)? (At worst, cutting off any part of history is either denial of it or even unspoken support of what happened at a point in it.).
Jeremy Sharon, the Post reporter who wrote the history in question, reported:

One of the most striking aspects of the 33rd Government of Israel was the absence of the two haredi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, from the coalition.
Since 1981, at least one of the haredi parties has been a coalition partner in 11 out of the 15 governments since that time.

Is he kidding? Even though Shas was absent (or Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had been deceased since October 7th of last year, which Sharon himself reported) and United Torah Judaism was absent, that doesn't make "the absence of the two haredi parties" (or any other Haredi party) a fact! On the contrary, the Haredim have always been in the government since then-PM David ben Gurion gave Agudat Yisra'el power.
All one constituency needs is an umbrella or big-tent party to be in its government, and that constituency is there for as long as the party is there. In this case, Agudat Yisra'el has been in HaMemshalah Yisra'el since before the "Declaration of Establishment" was written.
Therefore, for Jeremy Sharon and The Jerusalem Post to claim that the Haredim were missing from even one of the Israeli regimes, let alone four, is dishonest and (at best) sloppy or even (at worst) yellow journalism.
How would it be yellow journalism? For starters, yellow journalism itself

was a style of newspaper reporting that emphasized sensationalism over facts. During its heyday in the late 19th century it was one of many factors that helped push the United States and Spain into war in Cuba and the Philippines, leading to the acquisition of overseas territory by the United States.

Therefore, to claim a Haredi absence is yellow journalism in its own sense. To state that "the two haredi parties" were absent is sensationalistically acting like the Haredim were entirely absent, after all.
Besides, Jeremy Sharon also noted that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had appointed an heir∗:

Roi Lachmanovitz, a former Shas spokesman, said that the designation of Moshe as inheritor, in particular of the rabbi’s library and publishing rights, gives him increased influence within the Shas party and the Yosef family.
Lachmanovitz noted that it had been Yosef’s other sons who had been chosen for public roles. Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef was nominated by Yosef himself, before he died, to be the new Sephardi chief rabbi, and Rabbi David Yosef was appointed to the Shas Council of Torah Sages after the rabbi passed away.
“Moshe and his wife are returning to the center stage, because whoever has control of the books and library... can direct the [haredi] public, can tell the public what the rabbi meant. They will have increased status because of this,” he said.

In conclusion, Jeremy Sharon cut off 34-67 years of history (34 years counting from 1947-1981; 67 counting from June 1947-2014) and submitted a yellow-journalism article for The Jerusalem Post to print and publish (and apparently fell for his own revisionism).

Monday, December 1, 2014

This, again, is where the mixed feelings come in. I am staring at a picture of a notable actor. I am staring at a picture of a relative (I'm not joking. I said that "Danilovich" was a patronymic in his case. Then I saw the pictures, and I knew who Pop-Pop pretty much looked like. Right now, I see maybe who Dad will look like down the road.). I am also staring at a picture of the guy who raped Natalie Wood and murdered Jean Spangler.

What do you do when you know that your family wreaked havoc on the world and yet had some of the most-influential people come out from among them? Even my granddad, one of the three IRS Agents who served tax papers to Richard Nixon, came from the Daniloviches.

A long time ago, my aunt Mary (z"l) told me of the following exchange at a funeral:

That shouldn't be said about a relative (ideally at least), although truth outweighs family loyalty—and in the end, might save the family in at least the next few generations. I know that the truth saved my generation (at least me and my sister), and I hope that'll it save the ones to come (for all sides of the Danilovich Family, too, might I add; not just "Katarzyna" Danilówiczowna Czerniecka's side, and certainly not just Kirk Douglas' side).

As an in-law Danilovich (my great-grandmother Mary Trudnak Czarnecki) told my Aunt Mary, "I want to talk about it." That's exactly what I myself intend to do as a Danilovich and as a human being, so that I don't see my family wrecked again or wrecking the world again—and so that many other families won't wreck themselves or the world again.